The Rambam writes in laws of testimony 3:4 that one cannot decide a case involving money unless you have two witnesses, not just their signature on a document. I think the Rambam might mean this to apply to all cases involving money. You might argue against this from the Gemara in Sanhedrin that asks how can late documents be valid? Do not we need the ability to cross-examine? How can we so unless there is an exact date on the document? The Gemara answers there is a decree so that the door will not be shut in front of those who wish to borrow. The questioner believes documents are valid by the law of the Torah. However, I think the Rambam understood that the answerer of the Gemara rejects that assumption, and holds instead that all monetary documents are derabanan, and that they are considered valid for the benefit of those who want to borrow. However, Rav Chaim of Brisk wrote that the Rambam hold documents that cause a acquisition are valid from the law of the Torah, but not documents that are merely proof that an acquisition has been made. Rav Shach brings a few proofs against that approach, and writes that the Rambam holds even monetary documents are also valid from the law of the Torah, but not documents upon which there is disagreement. When there is disagreement among the parties involved you need the actual witnesses.----------------------------------------------The רמב’’ם writes in laws of testimony פרק ג הלכה ד' that one cannot decide a case involving money unless you have two witnesses, not just their signature on a document. I think the רמב’’ם might mean this to apply to all cases involving money. You might argue against this from the גמרא in סנהדרין פרק א' that asks how can late documents be valid? Do not we need the ability to cross-examine דרישה וחקירה ? How can we so unless there is an exact date on the document? The גמרא answers there is a decree so that the door will not be shut in front of those who wish to borrow. The questioner believes documents are valid by the law of the תורה. However, I think the רמב’’ם understood that the answerer of the גמרא rejects that assumption, and holds instead that all monetary documents are דרבנן, and that they are considered valid for the benefit of those who want to borrow. However, רב חיים מבריסק wrote that the רמב’’ם hold documents that cause a acquisition are valid from the law of the Torah, but not documents that are merely proof that an acquisition has been made. רב שך brings a few proofs against that approach, and writes that the רמב’’ם holds even monetary documents are also valid from the law of the Torah, but not documents upon which there is disagreement. When there is disagreement among the parties involved you need the actual witnesses.-----One oof the proofs of Rav Shach against Rav Chaim is that a document of a loan just by itself does cause a acquisition, just like a document of a sale of a field, [and thus the claim of Reb Chaim disappears that it is just a document of proof that a loan happened]. That is true to many Rishonim including Rashi and the Ramban. However, not according to Rabbainu Chananel who writes in Bava Metzia page 13 side a about the document of acquisition that Rav Asi brings there that the acquisition was caused by a Kinyan Sudar, not by the document. Also, the Rashba holds even after the document was signed and is valid, still there is no obligation to make or receive the loan until money has been exchanged and therefore there to their opinion, a document of a loan can be called a document of proof, not a document that causes a acquisition.-----------One of the proofs of רב שך against חייםis that a document of a loan just by itself does cause a acquisition, just like a document of a sale of a field, [and thus the claim of רב חיים disappears that it is just a document of proof that a loan happened]. That is true to many ראשונים including רש''י and the רמב''ן. However, not according to רבינו חננאל who writes in בבא מציעא י''ג ע''א about the document of acquisition that רב אסי brings there that the acquisition was caused by a קניין סודר, not by the document. Also, the רשב''א holds even after the document was signed and is valid, still there is no obligation to make or receive the loan until money has been exchanged, and therefore there to their opinion, a document of a loan can be called a document of proof, not a document that causes a acquisition.

הרמב''ם כתב במשנה תורה שקידושין בכסף הם דרבנן שכן זה נלמד על ידי גזרה שווה. כמה פרשנים טענו שהרמב''ם באמת התכוון שהוא מהתורה. אולם, הרמב''ן בספר המצוות שורש ב' מביא שאלה ותשובה של הרמב''ם על אותה סוגיא. הרמב''ם נשאל ישירות על כך וחוזר על הטענה שקידושי כסף דרבנן. הוא אפילו ממשיך ומסביר שכל מה שנלמד על ידי הי"ג מדות הוא דרבנן אלא אם כן כתוב בגמרא בגלוי שזה ''מן התורה'', כלומר צריך לומר את המילים המדויקות האלה. אפילו אם כתוב ''הלכה למשה מסיני'' זה לא אומר שזה מהתורה. אלא זה אומר שמשה גזר את זה מהתורה

The Rambam wrote in Mishna Torah that marriage by money [e.g., a ring] is derababan (from the scribes), since it is learned by a gezera shava (a principle of learning law from the text, but not statd in the text). Some commentators claimed the Rambam really meant that it is from the Torah. However, the Ramban (Nachmanides) in Sefer ha’Mitzvot Root 2 brings a question and answer of the Rambam about this issue. The Rambam was asked directly about this and reiterates the claim the marriage by money is from the scribes. He even goes on to explain that everything learned by the 13 midot is from the scribes unless it says openly in the gemara that is ''from the Torah.'' that is it has to say those exact words. Even if it says, "It is a Law to Moses from Sinai," that does not mean it is from the Torah. Rather, it means that Moses derived it from the Torah.-----------------------------The רמב’’ם wrote in תורה משנה that marriage by money is דרבנן since it is learned by a גזרה שווה. On the side some commentators claimed the רמב’’ם really meant that it is from the תורה. However, the רמב''ן in ספר המצוות שורש ב' brings a question and answer of the רמב’’ם about this very same issue. The רמב’’ם was asked directly about this and reiterates the claim the קידושי כסף is דרבנן. He even goes on to explain that everything learned by the 13 מדות is דרבנן unless it says openly in the גמרא that is ''from the תורה.'' that is it has to say those exact words. Even if it says הלכה למשה מסיני, that does not mean it is from the תורה. Rather, it means that משה derived it from the תורה.

בבא מציעא דף ז'

בדרך חזרה מחוף הים, עלה בדעתי שיש לי מידה מסוימת של חוסר בהירות לגבי מצבים בהם יש ספק למי שייך שטר; - או לפחות מבחינתי יש צורך לראות את ההבדלים. כי בתחילת בבא מציעא יש לנו מקרה שבו שני אנשים מצאו שטר, ויש דין אחד. ויש מקרה נוסף של אדם ששומר שטר, אבל הוא שכח אם זה היה עבור המלווה או הלווה. אחר כך, יש מקרה שבו המלווה והלווה מחזיקים שטר, והמלווה טוען שהוא לא שולם, והלווה טוען שהוא שילם אותו, ויש ויכוח בעמוד ז' מה הדין? אחר כך, יש מקרה של שטר של הלוואה שנמצא ברחוב, ולא ברור ממי היא נפלה. לשמואל היא מוחזרת למלווה. [ר' יוחנן חולק על כך.] עם זאת, ייתכן שזה תלוי בנסיבות, שכן היה מקרה עם הרא''ש, רבינו אשר בספרד של ימי הביניים, שם הוא שפט את המקרה על סמך ראיות נסיבתיות כפי שהובאו בטור חושן משפט, פרקים 65 ו-66. בכל מקרה, מדוע המקרה של המלווה והלווה המחזיקים בשטר יהיה כה שונה ממקרה של צד שלישי המחזיק בו עבורם ושכח למי הוא שייך

bava metzia page 7

On the way back from the sea shore, it occurred to me that there is a certain amount of lack of clarity about situations where there is doubt who owns a document;- or at least for me there is a need to see the differences. For in the beginning of Bava Metzia we have a case where there are two people that have found a document, and there is one law. And there is another case of a person who is guarding a document but he forgot if it was for the lender or borrower. Then, there is a case of the lender and borrower holding a document, and the lender claims it was not paid, and the borrower claims he paid it, and there is an argument on pg. 7 about what is the law? Then, there is a case of a document of a loan was found in the street, and it is unclear from who it fell. To Shmuel it is given back to the lender. [R. Yochanan disagrees.] However, this might depend on circumstances for there was a case with the Rosh in medieval Spain where he judged the case based on circumstantial evidence as brought in the Tur Chochen Mishpat, chapter 65 and 66. In any case, why would the case of the lender and borrower holding the document be so different from the case of a third party holding it for them and who forgot to whom it belonged?===========================On the way back from the sea shore, it occurred to me that יש לי a certain amount of lack of clarity about situations where there is doubt who owns a שטר;- or at least for me there is a need to see the differences. For in the beginning of בבא מציעא we have a case where there are two people that have found a שטר, and there is one law. And there is another case of a person who is guarding a שטר but he forgot if it was for the lender or borrower. Then, there is a case of the lender and borrower holding a שטר, and the lender claims it was not paid, and the borrower claims he paid it, and there is an argument on pg. 7 about what is the law? Then, there is a case of a שטר of a loan was found in the street, and it is unclear from who it fell. To שמואל it is given back to the lender. [ר' יוחנן disagrees.] However, this might depend on circumstances for there was a case with the רא''ש, רבינו אשר in medieval Spain where he judged the case based on circumstantial evidence as brought in the טור חושן משפט, chapter 65 and 66. In any case, why would the case of the lender and borrower holding the שטר be so different from the case of a third party שלישholding it for them and who forgot to whom it belonged?

הרמב"ם, הלכות עדות, פרק ג', הלכה ד'

נראה לי שישנן אי-בהירויות אך גם קשרים עדינים בדיני שטר. הסוגיא העיקרית הראשונה שלדעתי קשורה ורלוונטית לכל שאר הסוגיות היא האם שטרות כספיות תקפות דאורייתא, לפי הרמב"ם (הלכות עדות, פרק ג', הלכה ד'), או שמא הן תקפות רק מדברי הסופרים לפי הרמב"ן (ספר המצוות שורש ב') והש"ך בחושן משפט פרק כ"ח. נראה כי הדבר עשוי להשפיע על שאלות אחרות, למשל, אם לאחר חתימת, שטר ויש רכישה באמצעות החלפת מטפחת (קניין סודר), אם זה הופך את הלווה להיות חייב באופן אוטומטי גם אם לא הוחלף כסף (כמו לפי רש"י בבא מציעא דף י"ג צד א'). [הר''י מיגש והרמב''ן סוברים שיש חיוב על המלווה להלוות את הכסף אחר שהשטר נחתם עם קניין סודר (הביא אותם המגיד משנה בהלכות מלוה ולווה 23:5). אולם הרשב''א אומר שאין חובה להעמיד את ההלוואה, ולא להחזירה עד לרגע של החלפת הכסף, והטור ושלחן ערוך חושן משפט פרק ל''ט הלכה י''ז מסכימים עם הרשב''א]. (הטור כותב שמסמך לא אמור ליצור אוטומטית חובה לתת הלוואה, אבל הוא יכול להסכים שאם כבר יש קניין סודר שזה עלול ליצור חובה) באותו דף בבבא מציעא, יש ויכוח בין רב אסי לאביי אם העדים על השטר גורמים לכך שהוא כבר נרכש על ידי המלווה? אביי מחזיק כן (והר''י, רבינו יצחק החליט כך בטור חושן משםט פרק ל''ט דין י''ג) ורב אסי אומר לא (והרי''ף החליט כך בבא מציעא דף ט''ז, או עמוד ט' בדפי הרי''ף). עולות נושאים נוספים שאינם ברורים לי, למשל אותה אמירה של רש''י באותו עמוד והרא''ש שעוסק באמירה המסוימת של רש''י. כמו כן, אם העדים על שטר נחשבים כבר בדוקים ונבדקים בבית המשפט. (עדים החתומים על השטר נעשה כמו שנחקרה עדותם בבית דין.)[זהו דרבנן לפי הרמב"ם.] כמו כן, לא ברור לי אם כל הרעיון הזה של עדים על השטר גורם לכך שזה יהיה תקף, פירושו על ידי עדים על השטר בלבד, או גם עם קנין סודר. לרמב"ם הכוונה היא עם קניין סודר, ושהקניין נזכר בשטר, אבל לרש"י זה ללא קנייה על ידי חליפין. ובאיזה אופן הוויכוח בין ר' מאיר לר' אלעזר על איזה עדים הופכים שטר לתקף: החותמים? או המעידים? עבור ר' אלעזר הם המעידים. יש גם ויכוח בין רב שך לרב חיים מבריסק לגבי אילו שטרות ספציפיות מתייחס הרמב"ם כשהוא אומר שטרות כספיות הן דרבנן תקפות. עבור רב חיים, הכוונה רק שטרות של הוכחה, לא רק שגורמות לקניין כמו מכירת קרקע שהן תקיפות דאורייתא. אבל לרב שך, הרמב"ם מתכוון לכל שטרות כספיות, ומביא כמה הוכחות ברורות לעמדתו. [ואולי תשאלו אם אנו מחזיקים את העדים על שטרות נחשבים כאילו נבדקו בבית המשפט, אז למה לבדוק שוב כאשר המלווה מבקש להחזיר לו את הכסף

It seems to me that there are ambiguities but also subtle connections in documents. The first major issue which I think has bearing and relevance to all other issues is whether monetary documents are valid from the Torah as per the Rambam (Laws of Witnesses, chapter 3, law 4), or if they are valid only from the words of the scribes as per the Ramban [Nachmanides] and the Shach in Choshen Mishpat chapter 28. It seems this might have bearing on other questions, e.g., if after the document is signed and there is acquisition by exchange of a handkerchief kinyan sudar, if that automatically makes the borrower liable even if no money has been exchanged as per Rashi Bava Metzia page 13 side a. The Ri Migash and the Ramban as brought in the Magid Mishna laws of loans 23:5. However the Rashba says there is no obligation to make the loan nor pay it back until the minute that money has been exchanged, and the Tur and Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat chapter 39 law 17 agree with the Rashba. [The Tur writes that just by a document there should not be an obligation to make a loan, but he might agree if there is already a kinyan sudar.] On that same page in Bava Metzia , there is an argument between Rav Asi and Abayee if the witnesses on the document cause it to be already acquired by the lender? Abayee holds yes (and Rabainu Izhak decided this way in the Tur choshen mishpat 39 law 13.) and rav asi says no (and the Rif decided thius way in Bava Metzia page 16 or page 9 in pages of the Rif). Other issues come up which are unclear to me, for example the same statement of Rashi on that page and the Rosh who deals with that particular statement of Rashi. Also, if the witnesses on the document are considered already tested and checked in court. [This is derabanan according to the Rambam.] Also, it is unclear to me if this whole idea of witnesses on the document cause it to be valid means witnesses alone, or also with Kinyan Sudar. To the Rambam that is with kinyan sudar, and that the kinyan was stated in the document, but to Rashi it is without acquisition by exchange. And in what way does the argument between R Meir and R Elazar about what witnesses make a document valid: the ones signing? or the ones witnessing? To R Elazar they are the ones witnessing. There is also an argument between Rav Shach and Rav Chaim of Brisk about which documents in particular is the Rambam referring to when he says monetary documents are valid DeRabanan. To Reb Chaim, that means only documents of proof, not only that cause a kinyan like the sale of land. To Rav Shach, the Rambam means all monetary documents, and brings a few clear proofs of his position. [And you might ask if we hold the witnesses on the document are considered as having been checked in court then why check again when the lender asks to be paid back?] ---------------------הIt seems to me that there are ambiguities but also subtle connections in שטרs. The first major issue which I think has bearing and relevance to all other issues is whether monetary שטרs are valid דאורייתא, as per the רמב’’ם (Laws of Witnesses, chapter 3, law 4), or if they are valid only from the words of the scribes as per the רמב''ן and the ש''ך in חושן משפט chapter כ''ח. It seems this might have bearing on other questions, e.g., if after the שטר is signed and there is acquisition by exchange of a handkerchief קנין סודר, if that automatically makes the borrower liable even if no money has been exchanged as per רש’’י בבא מציעא דף י''ג side a. [The והר''י מיגש רמב''ן סוברים שיש חיוב על המלוה להלוות את הכסף אחר שהשטר נחתם עם קניין סודרas brought in theמגיד משנה הלכות מלוה ולווה 23:5. However the רשב''א says there is no obligation to make the loan, nor pay it back until the minute that money has been exchanged and the טור and שלחן ערוך חושן משפט פרק ל''ט הלכה י''ז agree with the רשב''א]. [[The טור writes that a document there should not automatically create an obligation to make a loan, but he might agree if there is already a קניין סודר that that might make an obligation..]] On that same page in בבא מציעא , there is an argument between רב אסי and אביי if the witnesses on the שטר cause it to be already acquired by the lender? אביי holds yes (and הר''י רבינו יצחק decided this way in the טור חושן משםט פרק ל''ט law י''ג.) and רב אסי says no (and the רי''ף decided thus in בבא מציעא page ט''ז or page ט inדפים of the רי''ף). Other issues come up which are unclear to me, for example the same statement of רש''י on that page and the רא''ש who deals with that particular statement of רש''י. Also, if the witnesses on the שטר are considered already tested and checked in court. [This is דרבנן according to the רמב’’ם.] Also, it is unclear to me if this whole idea of witnesses on the שטר cause it to be valid means witnesses alone, or also with קנין סודר. To the רמב’’ם that is with קנין סודר, and that the kinyan was stated in the שטר, but to רש’’י it is without acquisition by exchange. And in what way does the argument between ר' מאיר and ר' אלעזר about what witnesses make a שטר valid: the ones signing? or the ones witnessing? To ר' אלעזר they are the ones witnessing. There is also an argument between רב שך and רב חיים of בריסק about which שטרs in particular is the רמב’’ם referring to when he says monetary שטר are valid דרבנן. To רב חיים, that means only שטרs of proof, not only that cause a קמיין like the sale of land. To רב שך, the רמב’’ם means all monetary שטרות, and brings a few clear proofs of his position. [And you might ask if we hold the witnesses on the שטר are considered as having been checked in court, then why check again when the lender asks to be paid back?]---